EMORY HARVEY, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Emory Harvey appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to correct sentences under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The appellate court affirmed the denial and imposed sanctions prohibiting Harvey from filing further pro se appeals regarding his convictions without attorney representation, finding he was abusing the judicial process through successive frivolous motions.
The trial court's denial of the motion to correct sentences was proper. The court imposed sanctions prohibiting Harvey from filing further pro se appeals, petitions, or motions regarding the three cases unless signed by a member of the Florida Bar, finding he was abusing the judicial process by filing successive motions that were either repetitive or completely baseless.
[1] A defendant's ignorance of the law does not excuse the abuse of process through the filing of successive, baseless post-conviction motions.
[2] A court may prohibit a pro se litigant from filing further appeals, petitions, or motions regarding specific convictions and sentences when the litigant has a history of…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The defendant is abusing the judicial process by filing successive motions that attempt to litigate issues that were, could or should have been raised in prior proceedings.”
Establishes the court's finding that Harvey's repeated filings constitute abuse of process rather than legitimate appeals.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarvey had filed six prior post-conviction motions across three separate criminal cases (case numbers 77-25205, 90-18417, and 90-19890), all of which …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Gain Time Forfeiture cases and more on FLexlaw
SORONDO, J.
Defendant Emory Harvey appeals from an order of the trial court denying his 3.800(a) motion to correct sentences. Finding no meritorious issues, we affirm.
ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
We have carefully reviewed the history of this case and found the following: The record reflects that this defendant has filed six prior post conviction motions, three regarding case number 77-25205 and three regarding case numbers 90-18417 and 90-19890. All of these motions have been denied by the trial court and affirmed by this court on appeal. See Harvey v. State, 699 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Harvey v. State, 699 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Harvey v. State, 698 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Harvey v. State, 673 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Harvey v. State, 623 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Harvey v. State, 383 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Moreover, the Florida Supreme Court has denied the defendant ha-beas corpus relief. See Harvey v. Singletary, 642 So. 2d 1362 (Fla.1994). In his most recent motion to correct illegal sentences, his seventh post conviction motion overall, the defendant raises five issues attacking the validity of his convictions, which are clearly not cognizable pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
In keeping with the procedure employed by the Florida Supreme Court in Rivera v. State, 728 So. 2d 1165 (Fla.1998), we issued a rule to show cause, ordering the defendant to show cause why he should not be prohibited from filing “further pro se appeals, petitions or motions regarding the convictions and sentences imposed in lower case numbers 77-25205, 90-18417 and 90-19890, unless such pleadings are signed by a member of the Florida Bar.” In response, the defendant tracks the history of his post-conviction pleadings, arguing that they were filed in good faith, and explaining that because he is proceeding pro se it takes him longer “to recognize errors that occurred during his judicial proceedings.” We find neither reason persuasive. Both reasons are based on the defendant’s alleged ignorance of the law. Such ignorance does not excuse an abuse of process. The defendant’s suggestion that it takes him longer “to recognize errors” in his judicial proceedings ignores the reality that no harmful errors were committed by the lower court in his cases. If this court were to accept the defendant’s reasoning, it would be doomed to endure endless, spurious litigation born of the defendant’s delusion that he was wrongly convicted and sentenced on a 22 year old case and two more recent cases in which he pled nolo contendere (90-19890B) and guilty (90-184417D).
The defendant is abusing the judicial process by filing successive motions that attempt to litigate issues that were, could or should have been raised in prior proceedings. Those claims which are not repetitive are completely baseless. The Florida Supreme Court has recently recognized that “[t]he resources of our court system are finite and must be reserved for the resolution of genuine disputes.” Rivera, 728 So. 2d at 1166. In this light, we direct the clerk of this court to reject any further pro se appeals, petitions or motions from Emory Harvey regarding the convictions and sentences imposed in lower case numbers 77-25205, 90-18417 and 90-19890, unless such pleadings are signed by an attorney. See Duncan v. State, 728 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Hall v. State, 690 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), review denied, 705 So. 2d 570 (Fla.1998); Dennis v. State, 685 So. 2d 1373, 1375 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996).
We also advise the defendant that a prisoner who is found by a court to have brought a frivolous suit, action, claim, proceeding or appeal in any court is subject to the forfeiture of all or any part of his or her accumulated gain time. See § 944.28(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (1997); Duncan; Gorge v. State, 712 So. 2d 440, 440 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); O’Brien v. State, 689 So. 2d 336, 337 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 697 So. 2d 511 (Fla.1997).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Martin v. Moore, 781 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…the defendant is abusing the judicial process by filing successive motions that attempt to litigate issues that were, could or should have been raised in prior proceedings. Those claims that are not repetitive are totally baseless.” Harvey v. State, 734 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). The appeal of the denial of the defendant’s first motion for post conviction relief, case number 91-136, was dismissed by this court as untimely on January 29, 1991 without prejudice to seek a belated appeal. On February 11, 19…1 / 2
-
McKIRE v. Moore, 826 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…ls, petitions, or motions from Gerald M. McKire regarding the conviction and sentences imposed in lower court case no. 87-3572 unless such pleadings are signed by an attorney. See Martin v. Moore, 781 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Harvey v. State, 734 So. 2d 1179, 1180; see also Duncan v. State, 728 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Dennis v. State, 685 So. 2d 1373 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Petition denied.…
-
Librun Jean Henriquez v. State, 791 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…efendant’s actions threaten to diminish the ability of this court to devote our resources to the consideration of legitimate claims. We also note defendant’s past history of pro se attacks on his convictions and sentences.2 See Harvey v. [*4] State, 734 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 3 DCA 1999)(concluding pro se prisoner’s abuse of the judicial process by filing six meritless post-conviction motions, a meritless petition for writ of habeas corpus, and a motion seeking correction of sentence, but improperly attacking convi…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Rivera v. State, 728 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 1998)
- O'Brien v. State, 689 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- Duncan v. State, 728 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Dennis v. State, 685 So. 2d 1373 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Hall v. State, 690 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- Emory Harvey v. State, 383 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Gorge v. State, 712 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Emery Harvey v. State, 623 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)